Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

I read the LOR Trilogy years ago in High School, and after reading the
Fellowship of the Ring I was hooked and ended up reading the other two.
I knew there was a Book by Tolkien called The Hobit (There and Back
Again) because I had a friend that read it first. He was the one that
actually got me interested in reading The Fellowship of the Rings.

I never went back and read The Hobbit because My frend told me it wasn't
all that great, but did lay out the groundwork for The Trilogy. I absolutely
loved The LOR books, and after seeing the first movie that was made,
I was sort of So-So about it. It did follow the storyline enough to make
it interesting, but a lot of it (as always) was changed, and written out
(or In) for Effect. In the end (after seeing the LOR Movies) I actually liked
them enough to purchase them, and saw them basically as well done
movies even with the changes from the books.

I doubt I'll go to the Theaters (even though I did with the Trilogy), but will
probably check out reviews and get opinions from those who saw it
and make a decision on whether to purchase / rent the movie and watch
it later. I just have a feeling this is going to end up following the line of
STAR WARS. (they should never have gone back and done the first
three episodes).

I think it will be fine in terms of it potentially turning into the new star wars mainly because there's a solid storyline and because its only a decade later rather than 2-3 decades.

Also, George Lucas had nothing to do with it so that's a plus

Actually the amount of time between the Hobbit and the LOTR is about 60 years. When Bilbo left in the Hobbit he was about 55 and then in the LOTR he is 111, Frodo at the time of the start of the LOTR is 33, then he doesn't actually go on the quest until he is 55.

The thing I disliked about the LOR trilogy on screen was that for the
generation that saw the movies, they came away with THAT being
the story (good yes if you are a Sci-fi / fiction lover), but the books
JRR Tolkien wrote were pieces of literary masterpices rather than graphic
Sci-fi stories made into movies like Star Wars was.
I hate it that the younger people who haven't taken the time to read
The books, will not understand the time and research that went into
Tolkien's story in print. .... My thought right now is to go to the library
or to Barnes and Nobles and check out THE HOBBIT and read it before
even considering watching the movie(s). Hopefully the movie version
(even though going to be over done), will end up being "OK" as the
original Trilogy did when all was said and done.

Actually the amount of time between the Hobbit and the LOTR is about 60 years. When Bilbo left in the Hobbit he was about 55 and then in the LOTR he is 111, Frodo at the time of the start of the LOTR is 33, then he doesn't actually go on the quest until he is 55.

The thing I disliked about the LOR trilogy on screen was that for the
generation that saw the movies, they came away with THAT being
the story (good yes if you are a Sci-fi / fiction lover), but the books
JRR Tolkien wrote were pieces of literary masterpieces rather than graphic
Sci-fi stories made into movies like Star Wars was.
I hate it that the younger people who haven't taken the time to read
The books, will not understand the time and research that went into
Tolkien's story in print. .... My thought right now is to go to the library
or to Barnes and Nobles and check out THE HOBBIT and read it before
even considering watching the movie(s). Hopefully the movie version
(even though going to be over done), will end up being "OK" as the
original Trilogy did when all was said and done.

Well stated again my friend. I, like you have read the LOR's Books and I have also read the Hobbit. I saw the Hobbit last night in Rock Hill as my daughter took me to the movie for my birthday. It was a great movie and just like the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, there is always something left out of the original books because of time. You are so very right about people should read the books first before ever seeing the movies to get a better understanding of what the author is trying to do with his work and Tolkien's work on both the Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings are both MASTERPIECES! I will most likely watch the Hobbit again with my son as we share the same birthday and I could not be in two places at the same time!

I thought I saw you Spurticus, drinking a cold one with Bilbo, Frodo, and Ganddolph after the movie. I could be wrong as my eyesight is not what it use to be and I don't know if your adventures get you in that part of The Shire anymore?????

The White Council, Aragorn and Gandalf build their friendship, Aragorn's own lone journey around Middle Earth, early part of the Arwen and Aragorn relationship, the rise and fall of Moria. Those are the major events that occur between the end of the Hobbit and beginning of LOTR. I am not sure how they plan on doing the third part but I am sure Peter Jackson has a very good plan.

The White Council, Aragorn and Gandalf build their friendship, Aragorn's own lone journey around Middle Earth, early part of the Arwen and Aragorn relationship, the rise and fall of Moria. Those are the major events that occur between the end of the Hobbit and beginning of LOTR. I am not sure how they plan on doing the third part but I am sure Peter Jackson has a very good plan.

Aragorn isn't in the Hobbit(books or movies). Moria falls well before the Hobbit. The White Council and pushing the Necromancer out of Mirkwood is the only big addition that can be made from the Appendices.

Aragorn isn't in the Hobbit(books or movies). Moria falls well before the Hobbit. The White Council and pushing the Necromancer out of Mirkwood is the only big addition that can be made from the Appendices.

Balin didn't reopen the Mines of Moria until 2989 and Balin and Moria fell in 2994, return of Bilbo to the Shire (End of the Hobbit)is 2942 . The next movie is There and Back Again which will wrap up the book, and the third movie is supposed to fill the years between the books.

Balin didn't reopen the Mines of Moria until 2989 and Balin and Moria fell in 2994, return of Bilbo to the Shire (End of the Hobbit)is 2942 . The next movie is There and Back Again which will wrap up the book, and the third movie is supposed to fill the years between the books.

The third movie is still based on the book, and that is There and Back Again. For instance, that's where the Battle of Five Armies will take place The Desolation of Smaug is the second film. If you're talking about Balin's re-entry and not the actual fall of Moria, that could be in there, but would be very awkward for the story. It would represent a major shift in time for basically a one-off side adventure with only some of the characters(none of the main ones) at the end of the film. Balin's attempt in Moria does tie into the LoTR storyline, but only somewhat and is not directly related to the main plot. I haven't heard anything of it and don't think it will be included for the reasons I mentioned.

It definitely lived up to what I was hoping for. I found myself being surprised by certain elements added in to the movie and that's not really something I'm used to because of most movies nowadays being regurgitated material/effects.